The Siena Research Institute released its new poll today, showing Governor Andrew Cuomo still polling at 71% favorability, despite a series of controversial moves — including clashes with public employee unions, his apparent willingness to allow hydrofracking in central New York, and his push for toughest-in-the-nation gun control laws.

Siena asked voters in particular about the gun control plan Cuomo pushed through the legislature. They found that 73% of New Yorkers favored the ban on assault rifles and large capacity magazines.

The National Rifle Association, meanwhile, has approval ratings of just 36%, with 57% of New Yorkers unfavorable. Those are pretty grim numbers.

While two of the Governor’s gun proposals – banning assault weapons and increasing penalties for illegally
purchasing guns or using guns on school grounds – are strongly supported by voters, another measure – not
proposed by the Governor nor in the new law – to have armed security guards in all schools closely divides voters
with 52 percent opposed and 46 percent in support. By better than two-to-one, voters strongly oppose training
and arming teachers.

It’s worth noting, however, that Cuomo’s poll numbers are far lower in Upstate New York — though still relatively strong at 61% favorability. And in this part of New York, the NRA polls much better, with 50% favorable and 45% unfavorable.

Still, the survey found that 60% of Upstate residents surveyed approved the assault weapons ban, compared with 39% who oppose it. Read the full “crosstabs” here and add your comments below.

Ken, first off it’s “the Founders who signed” not whom. Secondly, slavery was not directly addressed in the Constitution or BoR because they never would have been ratified. Even in the late 1700s slavery was a hot button issue and the north was different from the south. What the Founders did was put language in the documents that laid the ground work for the end of slavery. Why did it take so long? Well, if you go back and look through the history you’ll find remarkable progress was made for some time. You’ll also find Democrat racists like Woodrow Wilson acting to prolong poor treatment of blacks. It takes time to change deep seated bigotry. I hope one day bigots like you and WJ will stop your unfair treatment of you fellow Americans as you do your best to take away our rights.

And while WJ waxes about HIS rights, Kathy has made the proper argument that OUR rights are just as important. The difference here is that we aren’t asking you to give up anything or demanding you buy a gun or anything like that. You are demanding we change and lose our rights. That’s always the way of the left, new rights appear out of thin air and enumerated rights disappear.

“If someone wants to take their high powered rifle with a high capacity clip into a school and start shooting that is EVERYONE’S business. At least I think it should be. How do we prevent it?”

If someone wants to take a can of gas to school and throw it on students and light it, that’s a concern too. If someone wants to sell his prescription drugs in school thats a concern. If someone wants to take a knife to school and attack people or use a chain or a bat or a rock those are also concerns. Are we taking people that own gas cans and lighters, prescription drugs, knives, cars, bats or rocks and outlawing certain types of those items, registering them, doing background checks, requiring locks or permits for any of them? More importantly are we working in any way to stop any of that by singling out the nutjobs and putting them somewhere they can do no harm? No, we’re taking the easy way out and stomping on the easy target.

“I don’t think any of you gun-rights supporters (except Rancid, with machine guns) have chosen to comment about the insufferable intrusion on your gun rights posed by the 1934 National Firearms Act– it has prevented you through your entire lifetime from owning machine guns, silencers, sawed off shotguns (handy in repelling intruders at close range), grenades, bombs and other high-power arms. So how about it? Intolerable intrusions on your precious freedoms? Or perfectly reasonable? Somewhere in between?”

Can you point out any event where a legally owned Class 3 weapon has been used in a crime in the US since the 1934 NFA? I personally see no issue with a citizen owning a machine gun. Criminals, yeah, I got a big problem. Same with silencers. In many of the “progressive” European nations where guns are still allowed, silencers are the norm since they reduce the noise associated with gun fire and that’s considered polite. Can you tell me the last time a legally owned silencer was used in the commission of a crime? Same for sawed off shotguns- shotguns with barrels less than 16″ long. I know people who own all of that type of stuff and they’ve never committed any crimes. So what did the 34 NFA do? Same thing this law will do, not much. Capone and his boys didn’t give up their Tommy guns, the mob still sues silencers (I suppose), gangs still use sawed off shotguns and the Rez is full of machine guns, grenades, rocket launchers, etc. What did the law accomplish except to limit what a law abiding citizen can have? Ask the Massena Troopers or OPP or QPF if the will ever conduct raids on places like Rocky Skidders compound. They won’t because it would be a blood bath and the cops would lose. The criminals don’t care what the law says and if you think this will affect them you are living in a dream world.

BTW, another home listed on the down state papers gun owners article was targeted and the guns stolen. I sincerely hope the paper is sued and criminal charges are filed against the entire staff shoudl one of those guns be used in a crime.

Paul says- “Kathy, yes, that is one idea. I personally wish this wasn’t a possible solution. My question is WHY are armed guards now necessary at schools in an effort to prevent this kind of thing when they have not been required in the past???”

Jeeze, this has already been hashed to death Paul! Our society is a mess, that’s why. Do we go back to the 1950′s where cops had 38 Special 6 shot revolvers, worn under a coat if it’s NYC? Times change. We live in a far more violent society than we have ever had before. There are areas where the police do not go unless there are lots of them. There are teachers suing schools because it’s too dangerous to work there. And every time someone suggests a common sense solution the bleeding heart liberals come up with 100 reasons that we have to let the downward spiral continue. So it is what it is and we aren’t going to fix it by pretending it’s not.

Ken, if your assertion is that anyone disagreeing with Obamas policies is doing so because he’s not pure-dee white, that’s a strawman argument too. I disagree with his policies and politics because they go against my better judgement, not because he’s black. Actually, he’s not black, hes half black and half white if it matters. I dislike both halves of him as far as his record goes. He may be a great guy, I don’t know. But it’s got zero to do with his skin tone. I disliked Teddy Kennedy, Chuck Schumer, Kirsten Gillibrand, Poppa and Baby Bear Cuomo, LBJ, Jimmuh Carter, Slick Willie Clinton, Hillary, Bill Ayers, Noam Chomsky and FDR far more than I dislike Obama.

Are we taking people that own gas cans and lighters, prescription drugs, knives, cars, bats or rocks and outlawing certain types of those items, registering them, doing background checks, requiring locks or permits for any of them?

no we are not. because they’re all much less dangerous than guns. the unique danger of guns makes it reasonable to put unique measures in place regulating them.

You ignore the obvious Hermit- in every case it takes a persons actions to create the dangerous situation. A gun is not dangerous. A gun in the hands of a lunatic is dangerous. So is a knife or bat or can of gas and lighter. More people drown each year than are murdered with legally owned guns. Do we outlaw water? Look at the stats-

In 2004, there were 3,308 unintentional drownings in the United States, an average of nine people per day.(CDC 2006)
U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

In 2004, of all children 1-4 years old who died, 26% died from drowning (CDC 2006). Fatal drowning remains the second-leading cause of unintentional injury-related death for children ages 1 to 14 years (CDC 2005)

U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

It is estimated that for each drowning death, there are 1 to 4 nonfatal submersions serious enough to result in hospitalization. Children who still require cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) at the time they arrive at the emergency department have a poor prognosis, with at least half of survivors suffering significant neurologic impairment.

American Academy of Pediatrics

An estimated 5,000 children ages 14 and under are hospitalized due to unintentional drowning-related incidents each year; 15 percent die in the hospital and as many as 20 percent suffer severe, permanent neurological disability.

National Safety Council

Think about it. Consider Chicago where citizens are barred from possessing firearms almost entirely. And yet Chicago had about 500 gun related murders last year. Obviously the guns used are not legally possessed, yet the shootings continue. CRIMINALS DON’T OBEY THE LAW! Are we going after the criminals? NO! We’re going after the people that already obey the law!

What would be reasonable is going after the criminals and nuts, but that’s too hard and doesn’t fit the agenda of the liberals. Just like taxing people into poverty, legislating job growth away and inventing rights for gov’t but not for people.

Are they afraid of guns? Maybe, I know some that are simply afraid of them. Most I know are more irritated with the thought that some people prefer to take responsibility for themselves and not cling to the whole big gov’t/nanny state/tax it death/legislate it to death ideals. They take whatever action they can to outlaw anything and everything they disagree with. That’s the difference I see, liberals want people barred from doing things by law, conservatives just want to be left alone. Liberals are into forcing their views on you, conservatives don’t care what your views are until you start forcing it on them. Liberals think the gov’t has the responsibility to tax you and regulate you into submission while supporting their agendas, conservatives think gov’t should just stay out of the way as much as possible and let people alone to live their lives. I’m sure many disagree but from where I sit that’s what I see.

conservatives just want to be left alone…. conservatives don’t care what your views are until you start forcing it on them…. conservatives think gov’t should just stay out of the way as much as possible and let people alone to live their lives.

rancid, you’re obviously a thoughtful guy, so i’m really surprised to see you write such patent nonsense. you’re describing libertarians, not conservatives. maybe this doesn’t apply to you personally, insofar as deep down you’re really a libertarian, but generally speaking conservatives are every bit as much into imposing their worldview on others as liberals are. it’s just that the points of imposition are different.

A gun is not dangerous. A gun in the hands of a lunatic is dangerous. So is a knife or bat or can of gas and lighter.

first, by this logic nothing is dangerous. (well, ok, at least no inanimate objects are dangerous.) which is silly. i think heroin in dangerous, don’t you?

second, guns are much more dangerous than knifes or bats or gasoline. the degree of danger really matters.

finally, i think i’ll just point out that water isn’t intrinsically a weapon, and while i’m no expert, i sure think we have regulations on buildings and walkways and the like near water. so i don’t see a lot of point to your comparison.

I would like someone here to please respond to this point that RC made:

Consider Chicago where citizens are barred from possessing firearms almost entirely. And yet Chicago had about 500 gun related murders last year. Obviously the guns used are not legally possessed, yet the shootings continue. CRIMINALS DON’T OBEY THE LAW! Are we going after the criminals? NO! We’re going after the people that already obey the law!

If guns aren’t inherently dangerous then how could a highly trained professional, like the police chief in Ft Edward, shoot himself while cleaning a gun? But wait, there’s more. The police chief was in the midst of an investigation of the shooting death of a 13 year old boy during the time when he shot himself.

Presumably there are police who are working to arrest perpetrators of every homicide in every jurisdiction in the country. If the police are able to catch criminals who are in possession of a weapon they can put that individual in jail.

Darned right. Anyone who isnt afraid of guns is a fool. Guns are extremely dangerous tools. Tools of all sorts are very dangerous and should be treated with respect and enough fear that you always use it with alertness and awareness of yourself and those around you.

Lots of tools can hurt, maim or kill you. Power saws of all kinds, like chainsaws, circular saws, or table saws. Any kind of tool with a rotating shaft like a drill press or the PTO on a tractor. Wood chippers! Those are really scary. Some of those will chip logs 24″ in diameter without slowing down. Or a handgun or rifle.

Kathy, the real trouble with gun regulation in cities generally is that they’re surrounded by states with much less restrictive regulation. That doesn’t work. Even state-level regulation has little effect when neighboring states have looser regs– New York’s new regs won’t have anywhere near the impact that national regulations would have. The gun advocates’ critique that criminals largely ignore gun laws is, of course, true, but with different laws in every jurisdiction, the effectiveness of the most restrictive laws is sharply reduced. It takes nationwide regulation and uniform enforcement to have any real hope of effectiveness.

Even so, according to one source, the states with the highest gun death rates (LA, MS, AK, LA and NV) also have the highest gun ownership rates, while the states with the lowest gun death rates (HI, RI, MA, CT and NY) also have the lowest gun ownership rates.

Rancid says: “Ken, first off it’s “the Founders who signed” not whom. Secondly, slavery was not directly addressed in the Constitution or BoR because they never would have been ratified. Even in the late 1700s slavery was a hot button issue and the north was different from the south. What the Founders did was put language in the documents that laid the ground work for the end of slavery. Why did it take so long? Well, if you go back and look through the history you’ll find remarkable progress was made for some time. You’ll also find Democrat racists like Woodrow Wilson acting to prolong poor treatment of blacks. It takes time to change deep seated bigotry. I hope one day bigots like you and WJ will stop your unfair treatment of you fellow Americans as you do your best to take away our rights.”

“Who versus whom” engineers are notoriously poor at grammatical nuances especially old retired ones such as me. Fortunately for you I have no compulsion to split such hairs as in for instance your last sentence above where you use “you fellow” rather than “your fellow”.

I did not ask why slavery was not addressed in the USDoI my question had to do with the sentence fragment “All men are created equal” in the first sentence of the Preamble of said document and the flagrant contradiction of the “actions” of the founders and a large portion of the citizens of the US for at least 200 years subsequent to the signing of and to a significant extent continuing to this day. Unless one is blind, deaf and dumb (unable to speak) from birth there is no possible way that any person can possibly contend that “All men are created equal” was/is believed and especially not followed in the USA.

Let me see if I understand your contention, you claim Woodrow Wilson (a Democrat) was a “bigot” with respect to his treatment of African Americans; therefore, I and wj are also bigots because you claim we are perpetrating: “unfair treatment of you fellow Americans as you do your best to take away our rights”. As I told Kathy I spent 10 years active duty USAF protecting your and all Americans “Rights” and another 17+ years working for the DoD; I’ll ask you what I asked her, “what were your contributions to the protection of my rights and the rights of the rest of Americans”? I found no comment wherein Kathy answered my question.

Rancid, I don’t think that all people who disagree with POTUS Obama’s (by the way Obamas is plural whereas Obama’s is possessive, just saying) dislike him because he is not white (I even disagree with him) my positive “litmus” results for such include those who never refer to him as POTUS or President, those who wanted him to be a “one term” President and told outright lies and much worse to gain such, ., ., ., ., and those who/whom call him by the “N” word and contrary to Paul’s contention I have heard same right here in downtown North Country.

Your specious argument that he is not black because he is half white is pretty indicative of your perspectives or lack thereof. Perhaps you have heard about our illustrious and lauded 3rd POTUS, Founding Father , principal author of USDoI, slave owner and father of half white (him) and half black (his slaves) children whom he retained as slaves none other than Thomas Jefferson. Not that Thomas was alone in his contemptible actions as many many US slave owners had no qualms about fathering children with their slaves and then using/selling them as slaves; however, Thomas is credited with inserting the sentence fragment “All men are created equal” within the USDoI, a more flagrant display of “do as I say not as I do” would be very difficult to unearth.

Ken,
It’s 2013 and most have moved on past everything being race or discrimination related. By now, it’s a crutch liberals use to demonize people who criticize anyone who can remotely identify as a minority. It’s a cheap way of trying to silnce criticism. It’s largely liberals who continue to focus on race and minority status.

jefferson ripped off the document of the agreement between the 5 nations of iroquios almost verbatum.
read it.
political ideas such as women’s suffrage, separation of church and state, federalism, servant leadership, and checks and balances are found in the Iroquois Confederation.
happiness, one of the three inalienable rights provided us in the Declaration of Independence, is a specific reference to Indian society. To Jefferson this Indian ideal of happiness was, a sense of personal and societal security, happiness, rather than property, was chosen as the third inalienable right because of Jefferson’s encounters with the Iroquois whom he deemed to be happy and free from the want excessive property accumulation forces on a society. the Iroquois Confederation also influenced Jefferson in his penning of the Bill of Rights. The guideline that Jefferson drew from the Indian example (and which he earnestly promoted in the First Amendment) allowed freedom until it violated another’s rights, Personal liberties and autonomy are a strictly indigenous characteristic. Personal rights and the importance of public opinion in governing are two distinctly non-European values embedded in American society today. These political characteristics owe their legacy to the Iroquois Confederation.

Larry, Those who believe they have moved on from “race discrimination” are those who never believed “race discrimination” existed in the past and they certainly do not believe it exists today yet are the self same who contend that “they” get all of the advantages and we poor downtrodden white folks get nothing. When acquaintances and friends espouse such lunacy to me my retort is “if you think “they” have so many advantages answer this question; would you prefer to be white or black in the US?” What do you think their answer is Larry? Why do you suppose that is when they, and I would imagine you as well, are convinced that they get all of the advantages?